Would Arming Soldiers After Chattanooga, Let The Terrorists Win?

2015-07-21T11:01:16-04:00

Taken from The Federalist @ thefederalists.com

This post is referring to how America may be looked at by terrorists, if the recruiters, and other non-armed military were armed because of the Tennessee shootings.
I read a couple of responses yesterday about whether or not recruiters should be allowed to carry weapons. One of the responses sounds similar to this post. In fact, it agrees with the responders response.

http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/21/arming-soldiers-after-chattanooga-would-let-the-terrorists-win/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=0fe413ad56-RSS_The_Federalist_Daily_Updates_w_Transom&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-0fe413ad56-83810921

JULY 21, 2015 By Philip Wegmann
Of the five soldiers murdered in the Tennessee Terror Attack, four were Marines, and as that branch’s doctrine declares, every one was “a rifleman.” Many demand to know why these members of the armed forces went unarmed. Each could answer with his Oath of Enlistment.

While in uniform, those soldiers at that civilian recruiting office went unarmed because they swore, “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.” To do otherwise would erode a safeguard as old as our republican government, transforming civilian offices into zones of military occupation. In short, if we arm soldiers off base, the terrorists win.

Arming Soldiers After Chattanooga Would Let The Terrorists Win

In the aftermath of the Chattanooga Terror Attack, we shouldn't turn recruiting stations in strip malls across the country into thousands of little Alamos.

Response by SCPO David Lockwood made Jul 21 at 2015 11:04 AM

2015-07-21T11:04:26-04:00

Good question. But do we just let our service members become sitting ducks? Or do we provide them the means to protect themselves?

Response by COL Vincent Stoneking made Jul 21 at 2015 11:04 AM

2015-07-21T11:04:34-04:00

Extending to Soldiers the same rights to self-defense as every civilian has is NOT a degradation of the constitution or in any way "letting the forces of evil win."

Response by SPC Thomas Baldwin made Jul 21 at 2015 11:08 AM

2015-07-21T11:08:22-04:00

It goes without saying, times are changing and the fight is coming home. One thing sticks in my head and can't be ignored. Arming our service members comes with its own issues like policy and scope. But anyone who thinks it wouldn't make a difference has to be crazy. If an armed attacker meets a group or individual also armed and trained to return fire the devastation of us service members would be much less. Mainly because they would not have the upper hand or free range.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 21 at 2015 11:10 AM

2015-07-21T11:10:06-04:00

No, It would be letting our service men and women have a chance at "winning" ie. surviving.

Response by SFC William Swartz Jr made Jul 21 at 2015 11:10 AM

2015-07-21T11:10:20-04:00

I would rather have "thousands of little Alamos" than one more dead or injured brother or sister who is serving this nation be it as a recruiter or in any other capacity! I say allow them to carry or provide armed security for the recruiting stations/operating centers, etc.

Response by SGT Ben Keen made Jul 21 at 2015 11:19 AM

2015-07-21T11:19:17-04:00

This is an interesting point of view on the whole thing. While I agree that we shouldn't be sitting ducks with our thumbs up our 4th point of contact, and as I stated in other threads, there is no clear cut answer to the craziness. There is no black and white, yes or no, go/no-go, 1 or 0 type of solution here. Lines are blurred, vision is hazed, visible targets are less than 10 feet away. As SPC Thomas Baldwin said, times are changing. The threat from enemies within our own lines is growing daily. Yet, we cannot come up with a solution that makes sense. Sure, the easy answer is to arm all the recruiters. They are trained to handle weapons after all. Give them a 9mm with 36 rounds of ammo and the proper paperwork for the state, county, and city in which they work. Problem solved right? Eh, not really. Okay, so lets send in the National Guard. Let's have MRAPs and LMTVs with weapon systems stationed all around the US, that will stop people from attacking us right? Umm, maybe. Okay, so lets make camps, call them something nice to mask what they truly are and round up anyone suspected of being an extremist, we promise, they will only be the worse of the worse. Problem solved right? Fine, lets deport anyone that came from or has ties to the Middle East regardless of any action they may or may not have done; after all this is American right, the land of the free, the place where we welcome your tired, your poor, your needed, unless you look like you might snap one day. Problem solved right?

As I stated earlier, there is no right answer in my eyes that has come to the surface yet. Some great intentions, yes, but solutions aren't as readily available.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 21 at 2015 11:20 AM

2015-07-21T11:20:18-04:00

Having read the article, there are some good points. Yet, we need to find a way to reach that balance of safety and not being a soft target. We need to find a way to be PROACTIVE instead of REACTIVE. The US has such a bad history of this. Because its such a good idea to lock the barn AFTER the horse has already been stolen.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 21 at 2015 11:41 AM

2015-07-21T11:41:16-04:00

I wrote my reason for posting this is because a member replied yesterday almost the same content as this writer. In fact, I looked at the authors name to make sure it wasn't our guy. I'm not sure I agree with it, but it's another factor to look at.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 21 at 2015 11:58 AM

2015-07-21T11:58:22-04:00

No.
I am pretty sure the terrorists thinks we are saps for not arming them sooner.
That's one of the reasons this stuff keeps happening.

I would expect that as targets get harder, the methods employed by the enemy will escalate as well. The blueprint for them is well established.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Jul 21 at 2015 1:49 PM

2015-07-21T13:49:28-04:00

Arming our soldiers stateside does not threaten the Constitutional separation of martial and civil power; it simply allows our soldiers to defend themselves in a war that has moved onto our shores - because we have not adequately dealt with it offshore.

Continuing to keep our soldiers defenseless at home is simply a continuation of this refusal to deal with the war that exists despite our wishes that it did not.

Wishing for peace has never won a war in the history of mankind, and it won’t this time either.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Jul 21 at 2015 7:31 PM

2015-07-21T19:31:55-04:00

Keeping our military unarmed will create thousands of little Holocausts.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 21 at 2015 7:33 PM

2015-07-21T19:33:11-04:00

I dont think so. I think it would be a show of strength. It's like a chess game, but in real life. "You make the first move, and I'll wipe your ass with your face."

Response by Col Lyman Faith made Jul 21 at 2015 8:00 PM

2015-07-21T20:00:38-04:00

Arm them and give them a fighting chance. This is not going to be the last attack on American soil. I have said this before, we are at war. We can pretend that we are not, but we are. Many sheep are shocked and surprised and ask how this could happen in our country. Our enemy has told us for months that they were going to attack us. Why is most of the country in shock? Sometimes being wrong gets young men and women killed.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jul 23 at 2015 6:29 AM

2015-07-23T06:29:48-04:00

If I were to have my way, the only thing the terrorists would win would be a one-way ticket to "Paradise!"

Response by SGT Mitch McKinley made Jul 23 at 2015 2:02 PM

2015-07-23T14:02:08-04:00

We absolutely must arm our troops at home. I think back to the days after 9-11. We shut down our base and put guard shacks at all the entrances, and our units were put on a gate guard rotation. We were in full battle-rattle, weapons and magazines...and no rounds. What were we to do if someone were intent on causing us harm? Get on the radio. That is it.
Same thing applies now. With multiple base shootings and service members being targeted, how are we not allowing our Joes to protect themselves?

Response by PO3 David Fries made Jul 24 at 2015 6:17 AM

2015-07-24T06:17:40-04:00

Despite what the bumper stickers say, peace is not always the answer. Sometimes, diplomacy fails.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 24 at 2015 2:41 PM

2015-07-24T14:41:25-04:00

If the decision was in fact made to have us carry weapons then so be it. I do not think that it would make a difference one way or the other. The last event that I am tracking, is two recruiters were walking along outside and were engaged.
This being said, here is what I see as letting people win. When we go into a situation where we are hiding inside our stations. Doors locked, blinds drawn, people not allowed to enter, we are told to drive to and from the station without our blouse on. Not acceptable.
I am a combat arms Soldier. I always believed that if a route was black, we found those that made it black and killed them and made the route Amber. Our job is inherently dangerous, it does not matter if we are in theater, on a post, or in a position where we are away from the flagpole. It is our job to deal with the fact that we are in a dangerous job. If people do not have the constitution for that, they need to be shown the way out. We are the protectors of America, we are the LAST people that should EVER be hidden away in the face of something like this. It shows that we are the Infidel Protectors of America that they say we are. I don't care, we are who we are, and we need to remain that no matter what. There was a shooting yesterday in a movie theater, does that mean that we are not going to movies anymore? I don't think so.
Finally, something to realize, this quack that did this WAS a lone gunman. PERIOD. Ok so he researched radical muslim stuff before he did this, he was trying to find a way to cleanse his sins before he did it. He had NOTHING to do with ISIS. This is not something that was like the Towers, Bin-Laden PLANNED that stuff, that was something that directed against US, the UNITED STATES. This was something that was as random as what's his face from FT Hood. You see these people are not worth us remembering their names, and we should not remember their names.
We need to suit up and move out, carry on mission. If they want to give people the chance to get out because they are scared, give them 30-60 days to get out because they are scared. Otherwise, we have to suit up, move out, carry on the mission and NOT BE SCARED OF PHANTOMS.... Just my thoughts on this.

Response by SCPO Larry Knight Sr. made Jul 24 at 2015 4:39 PM

2015-07-24T16:39:51-04:00

Hell No, and the day we allowed civilians to guard the gates at all military bases was when shit hit the fan. Like we are witnessing throughout this world now, WTF and do we just sit back and let the turds come across the borders without consequences ? We as the worlds largest super power are overrun from with in as a result of how this country is being run ?
We cant even support our law enforcement departments without the President getting involved and telling the communities the Departments have been racial profiling and don't trust them to perform their job. So now the citizens of this once great Nation are arming themselves and standing up to provide cover for us who used to do that job, and the government is looking at this as a form of aggressiveness ? I for one stand behind these young brave men and women that have the gumption to sift through the Bullshit and rhetoric that plaques this country, and with enough common sense not to be stupid enough to play into the hands of our political systems attempt/consider disarming its citizens in light of all the senseless shootings in the past few months etc;.

Get a grip folks